Microsoft to randomly generate EU browser ballot list

Microsoft has agreed to randomly generate the list of browsers in the ballot …

In response to complaints from browser makers, Microsoft has revised its antitrust-settlement with European Union regulators so that Windows users will see a browser ballot screen that randomly lists the icons of the top five browsers upon every launch. The previous method had them listed in alphabetical order, putting Apple's Safari first. Complaints from Opera, Google, and Mozilla resulted in the change, and also pushed Microsoft into moving the ballot screen from Internet Explorer into a standard webpage format, according to Bloomberg, which cites two unnamed people familiar with the case. The browser ballot screen will let European PC users download a third-party browser without having to use Internet Explorer.

The modifications should allow the EU to complete the agreement as soon as December 15. Assuming this date holds, the very long antitrust trial will soon finally come to a close.

In December 2007, Opera filed a complaint with the European Union, accusing Microsoft of violating EU antitrust law by bundling IE with Windows. The investigation continued until July 2009, when Microsoft decided it wasn't interested in more fines, legal bills, and/or a delay of Windows 7. Thus, the company offered to adopt the European Union's preferred solution for browser competition: a browser selector screen at startup.

In July 2009, it became clear that the browser ballot was for not only for EU residents using Windows 7, but for Windows Vista and Windows XP as well. Between then and now, third-party browser makers have been submitting suggestions and complaints to the EU to improve the ballot screen, ultimately delaying the whole process. On October 22, 2009, Windows 7 was released worldwide; many Europeans have thus already used the operating system without seeing the browser ballot screen, forcing them to manually go out and download a third-party browser.

Originally posted by hderycke:Apple. They're bundling Safari with Mac OS X, and WebKit is totally integrated into the OS. You go ahead and try to install IE 8 on Snow Leopard.

Also, Ubuntu, for bundling Firefox.

Scratch that last one, Linux OS are open source meaning nothing comes bundled in such a way it cannot be changed (nothing force down your throat). For example: gOS is based on Ubuntu so ive heard, they could potentially switch out Firefox for linux-Chrome...that's an example of why these rules do not apply to open source. Same with ChromeOS before anyone starts climbing that tree.

I am curious about Mac OSX though...it's very similar to IE in that respect..perhaps there's such a small marketshare they dont care? :P

Originally posted by Mike_B:So what company is next on the EU's list to sue for anti-trust? They have to keep generating revenue somehow, they'll need to come up with something big.

I know the new REACH legislation is doing nicely to generate revenue. At least they'll have a fat wad of cash for a few years before the entire chemical industry moves to China.

Come on EU, who are you going to gouge next?

They should have left it alphabetical and let the companies fight over renaming their products.

___AAAAAOpera... etc.

I suppose that Intel paying AMD 1,25 billion dollars to settle all antitrust suits by AMD doesn't count for you then. If it wasn't an implicit acknowledgement of huge wrongdoing from Intel part, I don't know what it was. Thus, the EU action is pretty much justified and holds a lot of water. Your rant against the EU, on the other side, doesn't hold much water. Despite being the most stubbornly technocratic body I've ever seen, the EU has also its good sides and going indiscriminately against big corporations or states when it is necessary is one of them.By the way, the EU is like the UN on the financial side, it doesn't cost that much money, can't run any budget with deficits and doesn't have any incentive to grab money other than strictly applying the rules agreed by members states and doing it equally and without any favouritism.And since I'm here to correct your baseless claims, REACH is certainly a shy attempt to regulate the chemical industries and compel them not to sell any potential toxic products to end-users.

As far as I know, this news is false when it tells us that European users had to do without any browser after installing Windows 7. I happen to live in EU and to have installed Windows 7 and it came with Internet Explorer 8 like any previous Windows version and enabled me to download Firefox right away. For now, there is still no such kind of browser ballot nor mysterious absence of Internet Explorer in Windows 7.

Those poor people; living in such inhumane conditions! If you ask me, Microsoft ought to be dragged into the Hague to answer for their crimes.

In fact, they're not going far enough. Personally, I prefer using NotePad++; but when I open up a TXT file on a clean install of Windows, Microsoft's Notepad comes up, with *no* ballot screen for me to download my text editor of choice.

Those poor people; living in such inhumane conditions! If you ask me, Microsoft ought to be dragged into the Hague to answer for their crimes.

In fact, they're not going far enough. Personally, I prefer using NotePad++; but when I open up a TXT file on a clean install of Windows, Microsoft's Notepad comes up, with *no* ballot screen for me to download my text editor of choice.

Originally posted by Mike_B:So what company is next on the EU's list to sue for anti-trust? They have to keep generating revenue somehow, they'll need to come up with something big.

I know the new REACH legislation is doing nicely to generate revenue. At least they'll have a fat wad of cash for a few years before the entire chemical industry moves to China.

Come on EU, who are you going to gouge next?

They should have left it alphabetical and let the companies fight over renaming their products.

___AAAAAOpera... etc.

I suppose that Intel paying AMD 1,25 billion dollars to settle all antitrust suits by AMD doesn't count for you then. If it wasn't an implicit acknowledgement of huge wrongdoing from Intel part, I don't know what it was. Thus, the EU action is pretty much justified and holds a lot of water. Your rant against the EU, on the other side, doesn't hold much water. Despite being the most stubbornly technocratic body I've ever seen, the EU has also its good sides and going indiscriminately against big corporations or states when it is necessary is one of them.By the way, the EU is like the UN on the financial side, it doesn't cost that much money, can't run any budget with deficits and doesn't have any incentive to grab money other than strictly applying the rules agreed by members states and doing it equally and without any favouritism.And since I'm here to correct your baseless claims, REACH is certainly a shy attempt to regulate the chemical industries and compel them not to sell any potential toxic products to end-users.

As far as I know, this news is false when it tells us that European users had to do without any browser after installing Windows 7. I happen to live in EU and to have installed Windows 7 and it came with Internet Explorer 8 like any previous Windows version and enabled me to download Firefox right away. For now, there is still no such kind of browser ballot nor mysterious absence of Internet Explorer in Windows 7.

Windows 7 was released worldwide; many Europeans have thus already used the operating system without seeing the browser ballot screen, forcing them to manually go out and download a third-party browser.

Or perhaps just use Internet Explorer? There's no forcing going on, Win7 in the EU contains IE. If you want a third party browser, you're "forced" to download it "manually" just like our merkun friends are.

From the article:...also pushed Microsoft into moving the ballot screen from Internet Explorer into a standard webpage format, according to Bloomberg, which cites two unnamed people familiar with the case. The browser ballot screen will let European PC users download a third-party browser without having to use Internet Explorer.

Anyone still find that hilarious?

"Oh noes, the browser ballot screen will be in IE8! Even if someone ultimately decides to not use IE, they're forced to use IE to download their browser of choice! Make Microsoft change that!"

So how is this going to work? Is Microsoft including an FTP client that will grab the latest version of the browser automatically, or is Microsoft going to be forced to include an installer for each of the browsers, or what?

And on another note, Opera has the smallest market share among the browsers listed in the ballot. I don't know the reason why they're dead last, but perhaps they should stop whining and start changing the way they do things. Firefox comes out, passes Opera. Safari comes out, passes Opera (I'm aware this would only be notable if Safari passed Opera on Windows, but whatever...) Chrome comes out, passes Opera. Assuming their goal is market share, anyway.

Covering my ass: don't flame me about Opera! I realize some people don't care about Opera's market share, use Opera because it is the way it is, and would rather have Opera stay at 1-2% market share rather than make changes to grab more market share.

They should just make it the top 4 browsers. Anyone crazy enough to use Opera is already using it, whilst seething white rage about how it "invented" all these features that those *other* more popular browsers *stole*.

Meanwhile, they look at those people with iPods whilst forlornly clutching their Creative Jukebox.

The previous method had them listed in alphabetical order, putting Apple's Safari first. Complaints from Opera, Google, and Mozilla resulted in the change, and also pushed Microsoft into moving the ballot screen from Internet Explorer into a standard webpage format, according to Bloomberg, which cites two unnamed people familiar with the case.

So what company is next on the EU's list to sue for anti-trust? They have to keep generating revenue somehow, they'll need to come up with something big.

Oh please... I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but perhaps you should do a quick Google of what the EU *is*, because apparently, you're having some trouble with the concept.

First, the money they've "gouged" from your wonderful can-do-no-wrong American corporations (which, incidentally have also been found guilty of wrongdoing in the US) is about a bazilionth of the EU's budgets. The money **doesn't matter for the EU**. I'd be surprised if they've even gotten their legal costs covered. Second, the EU can't just choose to make money and funnel it into other departments or sub-organizations. That's why you don't see the EU doing telemarketing, for example, or buy up some profitable upstart company. The organization is not meant to "make money", and it doesn't have a mandate to do that.

But apart from that, I agree, complaining that alphabetical browser order is "unfair" seems pretty cheesy. But you may note that this wasn't the EU making that complaint.

quote:

And on another note, Opera has the smallest market share among the browsers listed in the ballot. I don't know the reason why they're dead last, but perhaps they should stop whining and start changing the way they do things. Firefox comes out, passes Opera. Safari comes out, passes Opera (I'm aware this would only be notable if Safari passed Opera on Windows, but whatever...) Chrome comes out, passes Opera. Assuming their goal is market share, anyway.

Which misses the point entirely.Opera never filed a complaint because they have the least marketshare. As far as I know, there is no EU law for that.

So the fact that every other browser has overtaken them is irrelevant. What *does* matter is what they actually complained about: That IE is #1. Or rather, that IE has stayed #1 due to unfair business practices, rather than actually being a good product. And that has been, and still is, the case, even though Safari, Firefox and a half dozen other browsers have come out and left Opera in the dust. None of them have left IE in the dust. Because no mere browser can compete against the practices Microsoft uses, and has used, to guarantee dominance for IE.

Its stupid. If they are going to enforce this with microsoft, then they need to enforce it accorss all OS in the EU. Especially Mac and even linux. Just you can change the browser in linux easily, but your still stuck with whatever the distro came with off the bat. How is that any different than windows?